3disposition. Based on the forthcoming discussion and analysis, Mr. Hill’s motion is DENIED.ANALYSISIn the United States, it is well-settled that prevailing parties are not entitled to collectattorney fees from the loser.
See Alyeska Pipeline Svc. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y
, 421 U.S. 240,247 (1975);
see also Johnson v. City of Tulsa
, 489 F.3d 1089, 1103 (10th Cir. 2007). The“American Rule,” is not, however, without exceptions, namely: the bad-faith exception, thecommon fund exception, the willful disobedience of a court order exception, and the commonbenefit exception.
, 421 U.S. at 257-59;
see also Aguinaga v. United Food &Commercial Workers Int’l Union
, 993 F.2d 1480, 81 (10th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Congresshas carved out exceptions to this rule, allowing for the recovery of attorney fees under selectstatutes granting or protecting various federal rights.
at 260. Finally, many states havecreated exceptions to this rule, and the exceptions of the forum state apply when a federal court’s jurisdiction rests upon diversity of citizenship.
Jones v. Denver Post Corp.
, 203 F.3d 748, 757(10th Cir. 2000).In the instant case, Mr. Hill invokes four of these exceptions as potential bases for theawarding of his attorney fees: three statutory (§ 505 of the Copyright Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, andC.R.S. 13-17-102) and one judicial (the bad-faith exception). I address each
§ 505 of the Copyright Act
Section 505 of the Copyright Act allows a court to award attorney fees
to the party whoprevails in an action brought under federal copyright law. 17 U.S.C. § 505. Notably, thisprovision allows the court to award fees to either a prevailing plaintiff or a prevailing defendant.
See Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
, 510 U.S. 517, 533 (1994). Courts are permitted to exercise their
Case 1:11-cv-00211-JLK Document 43 Filed 09/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9